logo
Ngāpuhi at a crossroads: Unity, settlement and the future of the North

Ngāpuhi at a crossroads: Unity, settlement and the future of the North

The Spinoff29-04-2025

The largest iwi in Aotearoa has yet to settle its Treaty claim. As debate continues, Pene Dalton makes the case for clarity and courage. And settlement.
Ngāpuhi is the largest iwi in Aotearoa, with over 180,000 people connected by whakapapa – and our population is growing. That growth brings pride and potential, but also pressure – more mouths to feed, more rangatahi seeking opportunity, and more whānau navigating systems that have long failed them.
Many in our rohe live with the daily realities of poverty, addiction, poor housing and disconnection. Mane Tahere's public plea to address the meth crisis wasn't an exaggeration, it was a heartfelt call for help. It voiced what many already know, but don't always say out loud: Ngāpuhi faces deep and complex challenges.
Some believe a Treaty settlement for Ngāpuhi will solve everything. It won't, but it could help. A settlement would likely bring resources to support housing, education, language and land-based initiatives. Still, even if Ngāpuhi settled tomorrow, it would take decades to see the kind of results achieved by other iwi.
Tainui and Kāi Tahu, for example, have built economic platforms worth billions – but only after nearly 30 years of investment, leadership and learning from missteps. Ngāpuhi hasn't even begun that journey in a unified way. We're still debating how to get to the starting line.Some suggest a Ngāpuhi settlement might be worth around $500m. It's not an official figure, just an estimate. Many argue it's far too low, pointing to bailouts like the $1.6bn for South Canterbury Finance. But the real question is: are we ready to receive and grow that pūtea?The greatest challenge isn't the dollar figure, it's unity. Getting a mandate from all hapū within Ngāpuhi is incredibly difficult. Ngāpuhi is not one voice. Some want hapū-led negotiations, others support a unified iwi-wide approach. There are real concerns about losing mana motuhake and justified distrust of imposed structures.
There is a time to protest and hold the Crown accountable, but some of us have remained in that space too long. There's also a time to negotiate. The table may be flawed, but we still need people who can sit at it with integrity, strategy, and a long-term view. That mahi will never please everyone, but it's necessary.
Do we settle as one iwi or splinter into hapū-based settlements? If we settle, can we stay united enough to manage what comes next?Some critics ask why Ngāpuhi doesn't follow other indigenous models overseas. But no two treaties are the same. They were signed under different circumstances, with different governments, and different histories. While we may share similar values or trauma with other indigenous groups, that's often where the similarities end.
Even among iwi here, comparisons can feel uncomfortable. Some say we shouldn't compare ourselves to others – there's truth in that. We need to carve our own course. But comparisons to iwi not far removed from us culturally or historically can offer insight. If others have taken 30 years to build their base, we should be honest about the road ahead for us.
We also need to be strategic. If we're holding out for legal recourse instead of settlement, what would that actually involve? What would it cost and where would that money come from? These questions deserve serious discussion, not just slogans.
Personally, I support settlement – not because it's perfect and not because I think it will solve everything – but because I want to see pūtea flowing into kaupapa that are already making a difference. For me, it's about starting to rebuild, not waiting for ever for the perfect solution.
There's another hard truth: many of us are still hoping for recognition without realising that political leverage matters. If we aren't voting. or voting strategically, why would those in power listen? Until we can influence the makeup of a government, we're relying on goodwill. That's not enough.
Some argue settlement is a sellout. That money is the root of all evil. That engaging in this process means giving up our mana. I've heard it many times, but I disagree.
Our tūpuna weren't afraid of money. They weren't afraid of trade, negotiation or enterprise. Even before coin and currency, Māori had an economy. We bartered across the motu. Pounamu, kai, textiles, tools, knowledge. We understood value. We had systems grounded in reciprocity, mana and trust. Ngāpuhi sent produce across the sea to Port Jackson, Sydney. We traded with whalers, missionaries, merchants. We adapted and we built.
Some prefer the term 'restitution' over 'settlement', I understand that. But my impatience to see tangible change – to see investment in the initiatives already doing the mahi – makes that debate feel more about language than impact.
Money is not foreign to our tikanga – it's a tool. If we want to restore our people, our land, our reo, our oranga, we need resources. That's not assimilation, it's tino rangatiratanga.Many Māori who were raised in cities are returning home – descendants of those who left in search of work. Some were raised disconnected from Ngāpuhi identity, reo and tikanga. Their return has brought energy, ideas, and sometimes tension. These shifts have reshaped parts of the rohe – for better and for worse – but this too is part of our evolving story.
If you carry Ngāpuhi whakapapa, you have a right to care and a right to speak. Whether you're in Kaikohe, Tāmaki, Perth, or Nagasaki, Japan. Ngāpuhi are some of the most opinionated people you'll ever meet – and that's not a weakness – its a sign of life, pride and connection.We won't all agree – we never have – but we all have a stake in where we're headed. Settlement is not the destination, it's just the beginning. We owe it to our kaumātua who've carried this burden for decades and our tamariki and mokopuna who will carry it forward. Most of all, we owe it to ourselves to step up with courage, clarity and purpose.
Now is the time.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Marilyn Waring: Why I convened the people's select committee on pay equity
Marilyn Waring: Why I convened the people's select committee on pay equity

The Spinoff

time6 hours ago

  • The Spinoff

Marilyn Waring: Why I convened the people's select committee on pay equity

When it became clear the government had chosen ideology over evidence in its rushed-through changes to the pay equity system, former National MP Marilyn Waring decided to do something about it. I had tuned in to parliament to listen to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill debate on pay equity, and I didn't have to listen for very long to know there was no evidence to back this change in law. I sought to confirm this by going online and finding the parliamentary link to the legislation website. You look for the departmental disclosure statement and click on this link. After the general policy statement and the explanatory note, you get to part two: background material and policy information. (Yes, if they wanted you to find this it would be easier to access.) But you need to know this, because this is where you find out if anything other than ideology informed the changes in legislation. It operates as a mini audit, asking key questions that should have been part of the evidence for the change. In this case, it is a very rewarding quest. The first of the audit questions asks, 'Are there any publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect by this bill?' The answer is 'Yes', and three pieces of research work are referenced. Two of these are totally opposed to the changes in the bill: a report (by rigorous researchers) for the Human Rights Commission on pay equity and care workers, and a report by Research NZ that monitors social workers and employers before and after their pay equity settlement. Nothing in this report supports the changes, especially the response from employers. The other report was commissioned by Health NZ and the terms of reference were written by Health NZ. The researchers report that 'not enough evidence was received to fully answer the terms of reference'; many documents were not provided, and the wider context of the pay equity system could not be included in the report. This is the sole supporting evidence furnished to support the legislation. No regulatory impact statement was provided by MBIE. There was no analysis of 'the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth', (due to 'ministerial time constraints'), but apparently there was analysis of 'the size of potential costs and benefits'. This is an entertaining 'yes', as for a number of years pay equity found itself listed among the 'unquantifiable fiscal risks' along with natural disasters and Treaty settlements. So … how come we went from an unquantifiable fiscal risk to billions of dollars, and which wizards hiding where (I suspect Treasury) just made up the figures – because they don't add up! The next question in the disclosure statement is about New Zealand's international obligations and whether the bill is consistent with these. Oh dear: it's 2025 and the assessors in MBIE and MFAT looked at International Labour Organisation conventions and trade obligations, but didn't mention the Convention on all Forms of Discrimination against Women, so the answer is wrong. Then there's the mystery of what happened to the attorney general's advice to parliament on whether any provisions of the bill limit any of the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The site claims that there was such advice from the Ministry of Justice, so I scurried off to their site to find the Section 7 report – nothing there. How surprising. Next there is the claim that there was no 'external consultation on the policy to be given effect by the bill, or on a draft of this bill'. I seriously doubt this, and we will just wait for some loose lips in the post-budget estimates debates to reveal this. The government did, however, test the policy details with the Public Service Commission (where the pay equity group was disbanded in June 2024), Health NZ, the Ministry of Education and the Treasury. So, the government talked to itself, and what's more, every time they say 'employers', they are talking about themselves. In the absence of evidence for the debate we endured the lazy, specious, headline-grabbing and truly ignorant remarks about the comparators used in pay equity settlement. A comparison between social workers and air traffic controllers was one often quoted. I taught in the four-year Bachelor of Social Work, and the further one to two years for a Master of Social Work, at Massey University. Wherever I look on the web (New Zealand, Australia, UK), the skills and knowledge required for air traffic controllers are concentration, using judgment and making decisions, ability to work well under pressure, excellent verbal communication skills, problem solving, and paying attention to detail. In Aotearoa the qualifications can be gained in less than a year, at much less cost than a four-year social work degree. Understanding what a social work qualification means, I would happily employ a social worker as an air traffic controller but never contemplate the reverse. The minister claimed to be 'progressing this bill under urgency because we have to move quickly to make the changes to the act to ensure that the system is workable and sustainable'. No evidence whatsoever was presented to show the system was unworkable and unsustainable. Fourteen claims had been very well settled. Ideology was the only arbiter for these rubbish claims. I'm a researcher and I like to see evidence for such significant changes that continue to exploit women – an exploitation that has been present for my lifetime. I wondered what device could be used to collect that evidence. I began to call retired women MPs to see if they would join me in a people's select committee. We were set up in five days. The people's select committee is calling for submissions now – the deadline for written submissions is July 31, and oral submissions will begin on August 11. We will uncover and report on the information that should have been before any responsible government before the passage of such legislation, and we will make this available to all in Aotearoa.

Let's call ‘taxing the rich' what it really is
Let's call ‘taxing the rich' what it really is

Newsroom

time4 days ago

  • Newsroom

Let's call ‘taxing the rich' what it really is

Opinion: Last month the Government, under urgency, halted all pay equity claims thereby disproportionately affecting women who experience pay inequality. This is one of many policies that included gutting government departments and cutting public service spending to accommodate a massive wealth giveaway in the shape of tax cuts to landlords (a policy designed to supposedly stabilise rents but which seems to have had little impact). As reported in March last year, the tax giveaway to landlords is estimated to cost the country $2.9 billion. To put this in perspective, that is more than the amount paid in Treaty settlements since 1985, which is about $2.7b. In other words, in one year, the current Government awarded landlords more money than has been paid out to Māori in 40 years as compensation for historical wrongs. I note this to introduce my central concern that economic policy, as has been the case for the last four decades, is dominated by the central myth (now axiomatic for almost every government) that all our ills will be solved if we keep giving as much money as possible to the rich. This is based on three central assumptions of current economic dogma that those who question are branded as 'radical leftists'. These assumptions are underpinned by the beliefs that wealth trickles down; deregulation is good for business; and the state should stay out of the market and everything should be privatised. First, wealth, especially when given away in tax cuts, does not trickle down. It stays at the top. Ever-increasing wealth inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient or any study of income trends show this. Second, seen from a purely corporate perspective deregulation is no doubt a path to profit. However, it is also socially disastrous as costs of deregulation are outsourced via public bailouts following financial crises, for example, that are directly caused by the rolling back of legislation designed to safeguard the wider economy. Third, the state has always been an economic entrepreneur funding all kinds of technological innovation, such as the internet, but this often goes unreported in the dominant economic journalism. All this results in top-heavy, financially starved economies as governments continually try to make the wealth giveaways fit into a budget by stripping support for public services or selling off public assets at knockdown prices. (There is a tendency to undervalue the future social benefits of publicly owned resources.) Such sales are no more than an attempt to generate a short-lived financial hit that dissipates as quickly as the resources we all once owned. The fact that the global economic outlook as well as specific national economies remain so fragile and unstable, and are increasingly unable to secure the basic needs of their populations in terms of health, education and social support, is surely enough evidence that the principle of continually moving wealth upwards doesn't work, certainly not for society as a whole. However, because it has become communal liturgy, recited from almost every media pulpit for the last 40 years, it has become increasingly difficult to challenge. Just as there is no economic justification for structuring an economy in which only the very wealthy are the true beneficiaries, there is also no moral justification. From inside this dogma, the moral justification has always been that it is the rich in the form of investors and entrepreneurs that are the only wealth creators, and so they deserve to reap the wealth they create. But you only have to see the collapse in wealth creation during the pandemic when workers could not work, to know that workers also create wealth. Yet many are told they do not even deserve a living wage. Supressed wages is of course one way to structure an economy (there is no such thing as 'the' economy, by the way) to ensure wealth moves upwards. This results in a phenomenon called corporate welfare where the state has to step in to pay benefits to allow workers to actually live. What this means is that the money taxpayers pay out in social welfare is really a direct contribution to shareholder dividends. Welfare often compensates for the company not paying enough to workers so it can pay more to investors. This is another example of the outsourcing of problems for which the government picks up the tab. Just as the Joker begrudgingly loves Batman for maintaining the order he gets to break, the neoliberals love the government because they know it will be compelled to bail them out – a phenomenon known as the 'Greenspan Put' named after the US Fed chair who first bailed out the banks in 1987. Tax breaks are, of course, the main way to benefit the wealthy by directly increasing the wealth they keep and by breaking the public purse and public services. This then opens up new opportunities for privatisation and profit that will benefit a very small group. And I haven't even mentioned our non-existent capital gains tax. The assault on the Te Tiriti ō Waitangi is another example of efforts to structure an economy to favour the wealthy. Aside from the persistence of a colonial mentality hostile to all things Māori, Te Tiriti remains a firm barrier to expanding corporate appropriation of public resources. Should the Regulatory Standards Bill get passed (another piece of legislation aimed at weakening democratic control of resources and opening them up to private exploitation), Te Tiriti will be all that protects us. As our society is placed under increased stresses and strains beneath the extreme weight of amassed, socially useless wealth that sits with a very small class of people, there have been increased calls to tax the rich. I think we need a different slogan. In keeping with the dogma, conservative supporters have made tax a dirty word. Rather than tax being an individual or corporate contribution to the maintenance of a functioning society, the corporatist right has over the past four decades tried to make it a synonym for theft. The idea that taxing the rich is really a form of theft also makes it easy for the dogmatists to present the call as a form of envy; a petty resentment of the successful. Instead of a call to 'tax the rich', the call should be to 'reclaim the wealth'. I believe this phrase more adequately represents the request to return a greater share of what was commonly created. It is also a call to give back even just a small amount of what was taken through the design of an economy knowingly and carefully organised to purposefully benefit the few. Even if the progenitors of the dogma genuinely thought it would be a social good, which is hard to believe because they themselves do not believe in society, there is no reason to believe the fantasy now.

Te Pāti Māori haka sanctions debate continues in Parliament today
Te Pāti Māori haka sanctions debate continues in Parliament today

NZ Herald

time7 days ago

  • NZ Herald

Te Pāti Māori haka sanctions debate continues in Parliament today

The debate on whether Te Pāti Māori co-leaders will face the toughest Parliamentary sanctions ever dished out continues today after it was abruptly adjourned last month to give way to the Budget. The debate is set to begin around 3pm. It will be livestreamed at the top of this article. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Labour and the Greens MPs are expected to push fiercely for a weaker punishment while National is not expected to budge. Parliament's Privileges Committee has recommended suspending Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for 21 days and MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke for seven days after a controversial haka in the House last year. The longest suspension in Parliament's 171-year history is three sitting days. The committee's recommendations will be put to the House for debate and likely pass. Labour's shadow leader of the House Kieran McAnulty said Labour believed Te Pāti Māori had overstepped and that they should be sanctioned but that 21 days was disproportionate. 'Our contributions to the debate will be focused on that and not trying to defend their actions.' National minister and Leader of the House Chris Bishop said he was keen to get the matter sorted. Last month, Bishop had unexpectedly called for the debate to be adjourned. Bishop's justification was that if the Te Pāti Māori MPs were suspended from Parliament that particular week, they would miss the debate on the Budget. He also believed delaying the debate would bring the temperature 'down a notch' after recent heated commentary. 'My strong preference would be for Parliament to deal with it, deal with it once, have a big debate about it and then finish it,' he told reporters on Wednesday. 'It's before Parliament, we've had the report, frankly New Zealanders expect us to get on with the business of governing. This is a distraction from the major issues as to why we were elected to this Parliament.' The haka at the centre of the matter happened during the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, which was eventually voted down at second reading. The haka has since gone viral globally, amassing hundreds of millions of views on social media. Maipi-Clarke, Parliament's youngest MP, brought Parliament to a standstill when she began the haka while ripping up a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill, a proposal from Act leader David Seymour to replace the many Treaty principles developed over time by experts and the court with three new ones. Many perceived the bill as a threat to Māori and detrimental to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was a catalyst of the massive hīkoi protest to Parliament in November last year. Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer stood up and joined Maipi-Clarke in the haka, moving from their seats towards the Act party benches. Labour's Peeni Henare also moved away from his seat to perform. Henare later apologised to the Judith Collins-led Privileges Committee for knowingly breaking the rules by stepping away from his seat, but said he stood by his haka and would do it again. The trio from Te Pāti Māori were referred to the Privileges Committee but ignored the initial summons to appear in person, arguing they had been denied legal representation and the ability to appear together. At the time, they promised to hold a separate 'independent' hearing. Te Pāti Māori have been defiant in their defence of the haka. Waititi told reporters on Wednesday afternoon it was not clear exactly what the trio were being punished for. 'Some of the House found it intimidating, some of the House found it exhilarating because half of House stood up. We don't know what the reasons are for the 21 days sanctions.' Waititi spoke with The Hui soon after the committee's unprecedented recommendations were released. He said he was thinking about the people who had entrusted him to 'represent them the best way I know'. 'And that is to be unapologetic, that is to be authentic and honest and respectful of who we are. We should be able to do that without fear or favour and be able to do that without being ashamed of being Māori,' Waititi told The Hui host Julian Wilcox. 'What I feel is that we are being punished for being Māori. The country loves my haka, the world loves my haka, but it feels like they don't love me.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store